Columbia 3 given 17-year sentences

cdebru

RicardoSmith wrote:

you time mistaken for opunctuation if ever be not times writer english point what

be as condescending as you like I am still not punctuating it for you
if you cant read it dont bother I really could not give a ****


my honest opinion you didn't like the content so you criticised the punctuation
because it is easier than trying to answer the points

billy the squid

did they carbon date the video or did they just look at the clock on the corner of the screen, they can be set or wrong you know.

RicardoSmith

cdebru wrote:

be as condescending as you like I am still not punctuating it for you if you cant read it dont bother I really could not give a **** my honest opinion you didn't like the content so you criticised the punctuation
because it is easier than trying to answer the points

Not amused eh? Lighten up its christmas. I've no wish to turn this into a insult tirade. I didn't understand the point of post because of the lack of puncuation. Does this mean you are too lazy to post properly, or you wish to be misinterpreted? Anyway peace man. I don't want to argue about it. Other than....

If theres no question mark, its not a question. So theres nothing to answer.

How does the video prove anything other than the dates were wrong. Since they have already admitted they met with Farc in Coloumbia. After they gave up using their Eco tourist cover story, after they were discovered on false passports. Sure that means the evidence is flawed. But who's disputing that? At least no ones claiming they got 17yrs for the false passports now. :rolleyes:

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

so do i get an apology for accusing me of lying they were not travelling on british passports
or has it sunken in yet
bonkey has pointed it out to you
You were not 33% wrong you were 100% wrong
if they were travelling on british passports or Irish passports they would not have had a problem

Cripes Lad, two of them had false British passports then, you didn't clarify your statement at first to indicate that you meant you weren't lying because Muck or you hadn't used the word false so why should muck clarify his?
By the way, I wouldn't go reading yesterdays sunday indo if I were you( I know ye all hate it, but it and the Sunday world are the two most read Irish sunday papers)
It had a poll

spongebob

cdebru wrote:

so do i get an apology for accusing me of lying they were not travelling on british passports

No apology intended

cdebru wrote:

or has it sunken in yet
bonkey has pointed it out to you

Bonkey told me to chill, I am chilled.

cdebru wrote:

You were not 33% wrong you were 100% wrong
if they were travelling on british passports or Irish passports they would not have had a problem

Answer the following so.

1. Was Monaghan in possesion of a Crown Passport in Bogota Airport
2. Was McAuley in possesion of a Crown Passport in Bogota Airport

if the answer to 2 and 3 is no to either or both

3. Which country issued the passports they were carying

if the answer to 3 is none

4. What country purported to issue the forged documents

M

cdebru

Muck wrote:

No apology intended

Bonkey told me to chill, I am chilled.


Answer the following so.

1. Was Monaghan in possesion of a Crown Passport in Bogota Airport
2. Was McAuley in possesion of a Crown Passport in Bogota Airport

if the answer to 2 and 3 is no to either or both

3. Which country issued the passports they were carying

if the answer to 3 is none

4. What country purported to issue the forged documents

M

1& 2 no neither were travelling on british Passports

3 i have no idea if they were passports issued under false pretences or completely forged documents

4 they were purported to be british


now do you at last understand they would only be travelling on british passports if they were in their names
they were attempting to travel on FALSE british passports
important word is FALSE ie not british passports at all.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

Cripes Lad, two of them had false British passports then, you didn't clarify your statement at first to indicate that you meant you weren't lying because Muck or you hadn't used the word false so why should muck clarify his?
By the way, I wouldn't go reading yesterdays sunday indo if I were you( I know ye all hate it, but it and the Sunday world are the two most read Irish sunday papers)
It had a poll

I had no need to clarify anything i corrected a statement he made suggesting that that these men were travelling on crown documents which they clearly were not if muck cannot see the difference between a british passport and a false british passport that is his problem but he should not accuse me of lying

Btw i really couldn't give a fiddlers what the poll in the sunday indo said no more than I dont care about the poll that said opposition to the release of the killers of garda mccabe had dropped from 80% odd to 55%

spongebob

cdebru wrote:

I had no need to clarify anything i corrected a statement he made suggesting that that these men were travelling on crown documents which they clearly were not if muck cannot see the difference between a british passport and a false british passport that is his problem but he should not accuse me of lying

ENOUGH MAN !

They presented themselves as BRITISH AND NOT AS IRISH .

The handed the Columbians a document where HER MAJESTY apparently asked the Columbians to let HER SUBJECTS through.

They are A BRITISH PROBLEM now , the BRITISH should ask for their extradition not we Irish. They were not carrying Irish Passports when they were caught....be they genuine or otherwise ! They REFUSED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR OWN NATIONALITY .


M

cdebru

Muck wrote:

ENOUGH MAN !

They presented themselves as BRITISH AND NOT AS IRISH .

The handed the Columbians a document where HER MAJESTY apparently asked the Columbians to let HER SUBJECTS through.

They are A BRITISH PROBLEM now , the BRITISH should ask for their extradition not we Irish. They were not carrying Irish Passporst when they were caught....be they genuine or otherwise !

M

so on that reckoning you become a british subject even if your passport was false
so if anyone lets say some members of Al queda are found in possesion of FALSE Irish Passports they become our responsibility

in fairness this new rule you have come up with should open up the immigration route to the UK all they have to do is pretend to be british and wow they are British

spongebob

cdebru wrote:

in fairness this new rule you have come up with should open up the immigration route to the UK all they have to do is pretend to be british and wow they are British

It is more heinous that that cdebru.

Those who pretend to be MORE IRISH than the rest of us must have higher standards. Those who REFUSE TO RECOGNISE THE STATE must accept a smaller safety net

Of course the ultimate insult to real Irish People is when those who pretend they are liberating us from the British yoke go around pretending to be Brits

They were not in Columbia as Irishmen , let them not concern us now.

M

cdebru

Muck wrote:

It is more heinous that that cdebru.

Those who pretend to be MORE IRISH than the rest of us must have higher standards. Those who REFUSE TO RECOGNISE THE STATE must accept a smaller safety net

Of course the ultimate insult to real Irish People is when those who pretend they are liberating us from the British yoke go around pretending to be Brits

They were not in Columbia as Irishmen , let them not concern us now.

M

I have never seen republicans claim to be more Irish than any other irish person in fact a claim like that sounds anti republican

"insult to real Irish people" who are the pretend Irish people.
sounds like it is yourself that sees himself as more Irish than others

They are Irish the fact that they chose to use false British Documents is of no more relevance than if they had pretended to be French German Or Chinese only it is easier to pretend to be British than any of the above

RicardoSmith

The issue is the documents were false. End of story. Does it matter which country documents they used? I don't think so. Its a cover. Theres no need to examine it further than that.

spongebob

RicardoSmith wrote:

Does it matter which country documents they used? I don't think so. Its a cover.

A cover for what ?

M

spongebob

cdebru wrote:

it is easier to pretend to be British than any of the above

ROFLMFAO

M

cdebru

RicardoSmith wrote:

The issue is the documents were false. End of story. Does it matter which country documents they used? I don't think so. Its a cover. Theres no need to examine it further than that.

At last we agree on something.The origin of the false passports is immaterial.

( I even put in full stops for you.)

cdebru

Muck wrote:

ROFLMFAO

M

I am glad you seen the funny side to that.
it would have been hard for them to pass as chinese

cdebru

Muck wrote:

A cover for what ?

M

entering columbia

Slutmonkey57b

Can we drop the passports issue? The facts of the case are fairly obvious.

1: 3 IRA men entered columbia illegally on fake passports.
2: They then went to an area in the midst of a civil war which is controlled by a terrorist organisation.
3: They got caught. At this point they are guilty of 4 crimes:
a) Forging two British Passports
b) Forging one Irish Passport
c) Forging visa documentation
d) Entering a country illegally
4: They were accused of training FARC terrorists, and the crimes above, and imprisoned.
5: They claimed to be ECOLOGICAL TOURISTS.
6: Everybody laughed their asses off at this obvious lie.
7: They suddenly decide they're not ecological tourists after all but "envoys" observing the peace process in columbia. Envoys from who exactly? Not from anyone engaged in the legitimate peace process here, anyway. Who invited them? Nobody involved in the legitimate peace process in Columbia anyway - otherwise I'm sure that like all the other legitimate international observers in that country, they would have entered the country by legal means.
8: They are convicted of training FARC rebels in IRA techniques. Circumstatial evidence of this is provided.
9: Deeply repulsive terrorist apologists mount a campaign to "bring them home", assuming
a) Anyone here wants them brought home
b) Anyone here is stupid enough to believe that IRA terrorists travelling illegally to visit terrorist drug gangs is there for "innocuous" purposes.
c) They had any business being in Columbia in the first place. They had no business being in Columbia at all. We know this because they HAD to travel illegally.

What I want to know is:
a) Am I really to believe that SF or the IRA believe in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty?" Because, as we all know, they don't.
b) Am I really supposed to believe that 3 convicted terrorists should be "brought home" to protect them? I figure, they're terrorists. They made their choice already. **** them. Leave them there to protect US from THEM. In fact, ship more of them out.

In relation to "have the IRA been prosecuted for drug crimes" the answer might be no - but then, they aren't getting prosecuted for punishment beatings and killings either. Are we supposed to pretend punishment beatings don't happen either? Clearly they do. Also clearly, if the IRA is there to "protect" people in a certain area, how come crime is so high in the north? Why do so many people get murdered by the people who are there to protect them? How come the drug trade is still so rampant? The IRA is a criminal gang. They run protection and extortion rackets. They rob banks. In your eyes this might be "taxing" criminals. unfortunantly for the IRA supporters the Irish population is no longer so naieve, or so intimidated that they will ignore obvious facts that the IRA would rather they didn't know.

billy the squid

cdebru wrote:

entering columbia

why enter a country with false documents, is birdwatching/trainspotting/stamp collecting whaterer illegal in columbia

the nice lady from bring them home was on the news at one and described the whole situation as "FARCicle"

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

no new evidence was presented at the appeal they were convicted on the evidence rejected by the trial judge

what is staggering about a video placing one of the accused in dublin when the prosecution allege he was in columbia
what is staggering about a fine Gael TD signing an statement that he was at a function attended by Niall connolly in Cuba when the prosecution allege Niall Connolly was in Columbia training Farc

I'm sorry a piece of video footage could have been shot at a later/earlier date and the t/c stamp forged, and I'm sorry but a letter from a Fine Gael TD is not really a smoking gun. The prosecution team could have botched the handling of the defence argument and senior members of the state prosecution could have demained a retrial and with better preperation had these ailbis dismissed.


Furthermore if thats the only evidence the defence had it's phenomnially flimsy, if they had been in Ireland or the UK at the time, they should have been able to present pay slips/dole slips, plan tickets (oh wait they'd be in different names), sh*it loads of the documentation that accumulates about our daily lives. One video and one letter is mighty poor evidence in my mind.

You present no evidence that state were insisting on sending them down, and if that had been the case surely the men would have been under watch, or re arrested. Screaming "are we not wronged' and every trial that goes against a n Irishman means of course IRA men can't get fair trials.

RicardoSmith

Does anyone really care?

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

I'm sorry a piece of video footage could have been shot at a later/earlier date and the t/c stamp forged, and I'm sorry but a letter from a Fine Gael TD is not really a smoking gun. The prosecution team could have botched the handling of the defence argument and senior members of the state prosecution could have demained a retrial and with better preperation had these ailbis dismissed.


Furthermore if thats the only evidence the defence had it's phenomnially flimsy, if they had been in Ireland or the UK at the time, they should have been able to present pay slips/dole slips, plan tickets (oh wait they'd be in different names), sh*it loads of the documentation that accumulates about our daily lives. One video and one letter is mighty poor evidence in my mind.

You present no evidence that state were insisting on sending them down, and if that had been the case surely the men would have been under watch, or re arrested. Screaming "are we not wronged' and every trial that goes against a n Irishman means of course IRA men can't get fair trials.

ok as i did not attend the trial they were the highlights of the defence case
the fine gael TDs statement is important as it was backed up by the Irish ambassador to Cuba and Fine Gael would not be reknowned for stand ing up for republicans

the video was date stamped and afaik it was videoed at an event that took place on a certain date ie the date the prosecution say he was in columbia
they also had other proof that they were in Ireland or cuba at the times

also the forensic evidence was discredited

the trial judge recommended that the 2 prosecution witnesses be investigated for perjury


If you had listened to charlie bird or read the accounts of the trial in the irish times you would have been left in no doubt that the case against them on the training charges was flimsy at best

also it is not up to the men to prove they did not train farc it is up to the prosecution to prove they did

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

cdebru

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I didn't realise the case against them was that strong oh well lock them up so

Redleslie2

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Yeah, they make the same kind of BANG! sound.

Cork

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

'Mortar' Monaghan and his pals got $2m a trip from drugs cartel

JIM MONAGHAN may have supported the IRA ceasefire and be a confidante of Gerry Adams but he was, by trade and as his nickname 'Mortar' suggests, one of the IRA's top armaments technicians.

Link
Hopefully the Criminal assets bereau will investigate these people.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Blackjack

Can anyone tell me what the normal procedure is for dealing with people found to be travelling on false documents?.
I always understood it to mean that the persons would be sent back to wherever it was they came from?.

By the way I am not attacking, condoning or defending anything or saying the 3 are guilty or not here - I just want to know what the normal protocol is.

BCB

Blackjack wrote:

Can anyone tell me what the normal procedure is for dealing with people found to be travelling on false documents?.
I always understood it to mean that the persons would be sent back to wherever it was they came from?.

By the way I am not attacking, condoning or defending anything or saying the 3 are guilty or not here - I just want to know what the normal protocol is.

well it depends,usually they will not go to jail unless they have been in trouble before.....

BCB

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

The majority of killings carried out by the IRA were justified.